Let as many persons as possible file similar grievances.
On 6/3/11, M.K. Gupta <
mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> This is farce played by the DoPT which is doing every thing possible to
> blunt the RTI Act though it the DoPT should be its custodian. First, it
> tried to keep the file noting out of RTI perview, then one subject and word
> limit, now this direction. Every body with some common knowledge that
> in law, singular person also include plural. WHere the DoPT was for all
> these years?
>
> --- On Fri, 3/6/11, sandeep kumar <
drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: sandeep kumar <
drsandgupta@gmail.com>
> Subject: [HumJanenge] PUBLIC GRIEVANCE: WRONG INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 6(3)
> OF THE RTI ACT 2005 IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 13 OF GENERAL CLAUSES ACT 1897
> To:
secy_mop@nic.in,
jsata@nic.in, "humjanenge"
> <
humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Friday, 3 June, 2011, 4:59 PM
>
>
> To:
> 1) Shri Rajeev Kapur/JS-ATA/DoPT (& webmaster)
> 2) Ms. Alka Sirohi/Secretary/DoPT
>
> Dear Sir / Madam
>
> BY EMAIL
>
> PUBLIC GRIEVANCE PETITION
>
> Sir,
> Please refer to Part IV, Section 5(3) of Guide to RTI Act 2005
> circulated by DoPT vide its Number No. 1/4/2009-IR dated 5.10.2009.
> It has been directed that under section 6(3) of the RTI act, the
> application under RTI is to be transferred to only one public
> authority. The justification has been given that sub-section (3)
> refers to 'another public authority' and not to 'other public
> authorities' and that use of singular form in the Act in this regard
> is important to note.
>
> In this regard it is submitted that the interpretation of the DoPT
> that the PIO is not required to transfer the under Section 6(3) of the
> RTI Act, 2005, if the information "which is held by another public
> authority; or the subject matter of which is more closely connected
> with the functions of another public authority", is not as per the law
> of the land.
>
> The interpretation is 'misconceived', in the light of Section 13 of
> the General Clauses Act, 1897, which refer to Gender and number and
> says "
>
> In all (Central Acts) and Regulations, unless there is anything
> repugnant in the subject or context.- Words importing the masculine
> gender shall be taken to include females, and words in the singular
> shall include the plural, and vice versa.".
>
> There is absolutely nothing in Section 6 of the RTI Act 2005 to
> indicate that the legislature intended that the request for
> information should confine to one subject or one public authority
> only."
>
> The only requirement of the Section is that the request shall be in
> writing and accompanied by prescribed fees and the particulars of the
> information sought by the applicant are specified. Contrary intention
> to exclude the operation of the rule that the singular includes the
> plural cannot be inferred merely because the relevant provision is
> drafted in the singular. The act has been enacted to promote
> transparency and accountability in the working of every public
> authority and casts responsibility on every public authority to
> provide information unless it is exempt under the act. The
> interpretation suggested by the department tends to defeat the very
> purpose of the act."
>
> Moreover, it is the settled law that the instruction, guidelines,
> directives, orders, rules and regulations must be in consonance with
> the law of the land (here Section 13 if the General Clauses Act, 1897)
> and does not have any overriding effect over and above the provisions
> of law of the land. Any such instruction, guidelines, directives,
> orders, rules and regulations are ultra-virus and null and void
> ab-nitio.
>
> The recent example in this case is the striking down of the Central
> RTI Regulations by the Delhi High Court, which were found to be having
> overriding effect over the basic law.
>
> DoPT has not learnt the lesson from it and has repeated the same
> mistake by an over enthusiastic officer of the DoPT who looked upon to
> find novel ways to suppress information or to put the information
> seekers to a greater difficulty.
>
> It is also pertinent to draw your kind attention that Section 218 of
> IPC invokes in this case, which reads as under:
>
> Section 218. Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with
> intent to save person from punishment or property from
> forfeiture.-Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public
> servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing,
> frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be
> incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he
> will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or
> with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will
> thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to
> save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from
> forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be
> punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
> extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. The reading of
> other provisions of IPC Section 181 to Section 221 are also very
> relevant in this case.
>
> In view of above, it is requested that the above erroneous instruction
> may please be withdrawn immediately from the retrospective date.
>
> Thanking you,
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 1778, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181
>
--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.